Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Golgotha ... meh

Rynnik
Elmin Sterro
Dreaden
For the good of the server population and newbie retention, I suggest EBA stop recruiting players that have no interest in PvP. You can't protect them and they will get get killed. The SE is the most dangerous place in the game, newbies be warned.

It sounds like you guys might be interpreting crowdforging differently than the rest of us. The crowd should be doing the forging, rather than the crowd being forged. If a non-combatant player wants to play with a specific group of people, they should be able to do that without being told to leave or endure harassment.
No, actually that doesn't make any sense at all.

If someone joins a specific group of people who then attacks a self proclaimed 'PvP organization' they should NOT get an opt out from the resulting PvP as part of that group. That would completely strip the game of any sort of meaning or consequence.

Politics matter. If you decide to be led by political failures that should impact your day-to-day play.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Elmin Sterro
Dreaden
For the good of the server population and newbie retention, I suggest EBA stop recruiting players that have no interest in PvP. You can't protect them and they will get get killed. The SE is the most dangerous place in the game, newbies be warned.

It sounds like you guys might be interpreting crowdforging differently than the rest of us. The crowd should be doing the forging, rather than the crowd being forged. If a non-combatant player wants to play with a specific group of people, they should be able to do that without being told to leave or endure harassment.

What?

If you are joining a settlement or a company that is currently at war or in a feud, you are in fact joining that conflict. If you were mislead in not being told the current state of affairs, you should either leave or endure and hope for quieter times ahead.

As others have pointed out, there is nearly 60% or more of the settlements that you could join to avoid the war. That is of course no guarantee that feuds or wars won't someday visit them either, PFO is in fact a game built on the premise of Settlement vs Settlement competition and conquest.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.

Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
Decius
Let's take the Eve comparison further. There are in fact places in Eve where a character is perfectly safe from absolutely any ship-based attack.

Not hisec space; there are costly ways to attack there.

Inside NPC stations it the area in Eve that is perfectly safe. Wardecs don't matter, suicide ganking is N/A.
Even in a PC station, you are mostly safe. It takes an actual war with actual combat to hurt you.
You can't do everything from within a station, but you can do a lot.

Why is standing at the bank in Thornkeep only as safe as hisec and not as safe as an NPC station? Why aren't we as safe looking at a crafting screen in a PC settlent as we are managing queues in a Player-owned station?
Rynnik
Decius
Let's take the Eve comparison further. There are in fact places in Eve where a character is perfectly safe from absolutely any ship-based attack.

Not hisec space; there are costly ways to attack there.

Inside NPC stations it the area in Eve that is perfectly safe. Wardecs don't matter, suicide ganking is N/A.
Even in a PC station, you are mostly safe. It takes an actual war with actual combat to hurt you.
You can't do everything from within a station, but you can do a lot.

Why is standing at the bank in Thornkeep only as safe as hisec and not as safe as an NPC station? Why aren't we as safe looking at a crafting screen in a PC settlent as we are managing queues in a Player-owned station?
You are still subject to losing PvP in stations in EVE. It is just market PvP, political PvP, meta PvP, some other sort etc etc.

Luckily in PFO you can be much safer then anywhere in EVE if you put a bit of time and interpersonal skill into it.

Yah, I wouldn't expect you to be able to either.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Doc
Maybe Goblin Works doesn't want players to have an infinite invulnerability zone?

I don't know. I get the impression that Goblin Works is pretty OK with how EoX has been conducting themselves and the amount of PvP they instigate.

Goblin Works has had plenty of opportunities and avenues by which they could more significantly curtail PvP in different contexts, but they have actually taken steps to increase it and/or reduce protections from. My understanding of future game features like factions and such will only continue that trajectory.
Elmin Sterro
Rynnik
Elmin Sterro
Dreaden
For the good of the server population and newbie retention, I suggest EBA stop recruiting players that have no interest in PvP. You can't protect them and they will get get killed. The SE is the most dangerous place in the game, newbies be warned.

It sounds like you guys might be interpreting crowdforging differently than the rest of us. The crowd should be doing the forging, rather than the crowd being forged. If a non-combatant player wants to play with a specific group of people, they should be able to do that without being told to leave or endure harassment.
No, actually that doesn't make any sense at all.

If someone joins a specific group of people who then attacks a self proclaimed 'PvP organization' they should NOT get an opt out from the resulting PvP as part of that group. That would completely strip the game of any sort of meaning or consequence.

Politics matter. If you decide to be led by political failures that should impact your day-to-day play.

I'm not disputing your reasoning for why you attack non-combatants, I fully understand that is an element of warfare. What I disagree with is the continual insistence that players should leave a group to avoid PvP. If your response to a complaint like Harads was simply "Sorry buddy, we're at war."*, it would not bother me. Instead you are saying "Hey, if you don't want to be killed, then go play with a different group of people."*, which intentionally or not sounds a lot like an attempt to bully players out of our companies, which I find to be in extremely poor taste.

*-Not actual quotes, in case that's not obvious.
Doc
I mean, people on the other side of the neutral zone have been told pretty much the same kind of message. The in-game groups we associate with are meaningful decisions and have an impact on how we get to play and have consequences.

It just seems to me that some folks feel like those types of consequences were only ever supposed to apply to the "bad people", as if the entire construct of PvP and meaningful settlement conflict is intended to marginalize a certain play style entirely to the benefit of another.

I think the idea of the consequences of settlement membership goes both ways, and that to avoid those consequences you are faced with the meaningful choice of where to reside, is what is being conveyed here. The fact that profound and seemingly simple (to me) concept is being construed as bullying is in my opinion just an artifact of the deeply pervasive attitude that people in EoX are actually just bad people in real life.
Bringslite
"Luckily in PFO you can be much safer then anywhere in EVE if you put a bit of time and interpersonal skill into it.

Yah, I wouldn't expect you to be able to either. "

^^How does this further a conversation between adults?^^

Why would there be NO safe places, except Thornkeep? <—inside of which at least one new member of Ozem's has been attacked.

Is there a successful sandbox (operating now and at profit) that hasn't any safe (from unwanted PVP) areas in it? If not, why would PfO be designed differently?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
What company is Harad actually in? I'm quite surprised he is not in EL or some other politically neutral settlement / company.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.

Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
Rynnik
Elmin Sterro
Rynnik
Elmin Sterro
Dreaden
For the good of the server population and newbie retention, I suggest EBA stop recruiting players that have no interest in PvP. You can't protect them and they will get get killed. The SE is the most dangerous place in the game, newbies be warned.

It sounds like you guys might be interpreting crowdforging differently than the rest of us. The crowd should be doing the forging, rather than the crowd being forged. If a non-combatant player wants to play with a specific group of people, they should be able to do that without being told to leave or endure harassment.
No, actually that doesn't make any sense at all.

If someone joins a specific group of people who then attacks a self proclaimed 'PvP organization' they should NOT get an opt out from the resulting PvP as part of that group. That would completely strip the game of any sort of meaning or consequence.

Politics matter. If you decide to be led by political failures that should impact your day-to-day play.

I'm not disputing your reasoning for why you attack non-combatants, I fully understand that is an element of warfare. What I disagree with is the continual insistence that players should leave a group to avoid PvP. If your response to a complaint like Harads was simply "Sorry buddy, we're at war."*, it would not bother me. Instead you are saying "Hey, if you don't want to be killed, then go play with a different group of people."*, which intentionally or not sounds a lot like an attempt to bully players out of our companies, which I find to be in extremely poor taste.

*-Not actual quotes, in case that's not obvious.
I've done that whole 'Sorry buddy, we're at war.' thing a lot in the past, but I felt like it was best to stop bothering.

Why?

Because of repeated statements from your leadership that they won't ever trust an agreement with us and have no intention of seeking a diplomatic resolution - someone will burn before they sit at a table with us evil landrush cheaters and that seems to be the stance they want.

If this is the case it actually seems pretty nasty TO ME to do the ol' "suck it up buttercup" of sorry we are at war. We jokingly call this the forever war for good reason as that seems to be exactly what Nihimon and Decius want. As far as that leaves me I actually think it is much nicer for me to say, 'mate, you really should go find a new home if this conflict isn't fun for you, because it is fun for me and from what I can tell it isn't ending any time soon'.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post